As an American who has lived in Europe for
the last 24 years, I see on a daily basis how different the American and
European economic systems are, and how deeply this affects the ways they
produce, market and perceive art. America advocates supply-side economics,
small government and free trade – all reflecting a belief that societies
should minimize government expenditure and maximize deregulated, privatized
global capitalism. Corporate freedom is considered a direct and analogous
extension of personal freedom. Europeans, by contrast, hold to mixed
economies with large social and cultural programs. Governmental spending
often equals about half the GNP. Europeans argue that an unmitigated
capitalism creates an isomorphic, corporate-dominated society with reduced
individual and social options. Americans insist that privatization and the
marketplace provide greater efficiency than governments. These two economic
systems have created something of a cultural divide between Europeans and
Americans.

Germany’s public arts funding, for
example, allows the country to have 23 times more full-time symphony
orchestras per capita than the United States, and approximately 28 times
more full-time opera houses. [1]
In Europe, publicly funded cultural institutions are used to educate young
people and this helps to maintain a high level of interest in the arts. In
America, arts education faces constant cutbacks, which helps reduce
interest.

The Rise of Neo-Liberalism As a
Cultural Paradigm

The divisions between American and European
arts-funding models are best understood if one briefly considers the changes
that have evolved in U.S. economic policy over the last 30 years. Except for
the military, there has been continual political pressure to reduce
government. Even though the government’s budgets have continued to
increase, arts funding has been particularly vulnerable to cuts. By 1997,
the NEA’s funding was close to half its former high, and has only slowly
regained some of its lost ground.

University of Chicago economist Milton
Friedman stressed the value of limited taxation and unregulated global
markets in the 1970s. Many influential members of the political and economic
elite embraced his views. With Ronald Reagan’s election, Friedman’s
proposals became established U.S. policy. Friedman’s philosophy of limited
government and free trade was seen as an extension of Adam Smith’s 18th
century market-liberalism, and is technically referred to by many economists
as neo-liberalism. [2]

Some of neo-liberalism’s most important
tenets are cutting public expenditure for social services such as health
insurance, education and cultural programs. This is consistent with its
other policies, such as the deregulation of the market to allow the free
flow of capital and limit restrictions caused by issues such as
environmentalism and job safety; privatization of state-owned enterprises
such as schools, parks, toll highways, hospitals, utilities, and water
supplies; and the replacement of traditional concepts such as “the public
good” or “community” with values emphasizing “individual
responsibility.” (We thus see that in its technical economic meanings,
neo-liberalism differs from the common American political usage of the term
“liberal.” Neo-liberalism refers instead to the historical meanings of
market-liberalism as freed from government intervention or involvement.)

In its purest form, America’s
neo-liberalism would suggest that cultural expression that doesn't fit in
the marketplace doesn't belong at all. For the arts, the alternative has
been to maintain a relatively marginalized existence supported by gifts from
corporations, foundations and the wealthy. A system similar to a marginal
and elitist cultural plutocracy evolves. This philosophy is almost
diametrically opposed to the tradition of large public cultural funding
found in most of Europe’s social democracies.

The Hip-Con Argument

Through the influence of neo-liberalism, it
is becoming increasingly common in America to suggest that classical music
must enter the market place in order to survive. One of the most interesting
and nuanced proponents of this view is Greg Sandow, who writes for The
Wall Street Journal. He argues that classical music must creatively
accept the structures of the marketplace. He notes that even the fringes of
the mass market are enormous. If artists can't fit into America’s
relatively unmitigated capitalist system, they are to be blamed, at least in
part, for their lack of imagination and relevance. Alternatives, such as
public funding for the arts, are left largely unmentioned. [3]

The general correlations between Mr.
Sandow’s ideas and neo-liberalism are fairly obvious. Government is to be
reduced and an unregulated market furthered. His view could also stem from
his musical background. He worked as a pop music critic for Entertainment
Weekly before moving to The Wall Street Journal. In his
writings, he moves freely between pop and classical.

The approach of leveling pop and classical
into the marketplace is both aesthetically hip and financially conservative.
The younger Wall Street might even define business as an extension of the
freewheeling, libertarian ethos of rock and roll. In this sense, they might
be referred to as hip-cons. Rock and roll and its many pop variants are the
mainstay of the corporate music industry’s income. Rock also accurately
reflects something of the American business spirit of enterprise and
freedom.

The Danger of Conformity in Mass
Markets

From its beginnings, rock revolted against
stifling convention and hypocrisy. Rock, however, is a form of rebellion
carried by the mass media, which leaves it characterized by internal
conflicts. Up front we might have a socially rebellious Bruce Springsteen,
but behind him stands a massive music industry deeply rooted in the Wall
Street establishment, whose purpose is not to formulate social criticism but
to make money.

Mass media pop is thus distinguished by its
ability to create a ready, packaged (and often benign) form of social
criticism that raises protest only within the strictures the mass market
will accept. This characteristic, however, must be carefully disguised or
the impression of hipness is weakened. Big business is the dirty secret in
the background. The current crisis with file sharing is an example of the
troubles the music industry can have when its business side becomes too
visible.

The best argument for pop music actually
leading a social rebellion would probably be found in the '60s, but even
then elements of conformity were apparent. The massive criticism of John
Lennon’s comment that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ was
a clear illustration. Antiwar songs and drugs were socially acceptable, but
presumed insults to Christianity were not. Some recent examples of how pop
must conform to the strictures of the mass market are Springsteen’s
backdown from his criticisms of the New York police for brutality, the
attacks on Sinead O’Conner after her criticisms of the Pope (which
contributed to the end of her career), the delayed release of Madonna’s
antiwar album in spite of her carefully parsed image as a fearless rebel,
and the boycott and burning of the Dixie Chicks’ CDs after their
criticisms of Bush and the Iraq war.

Mass pop thrives on controversy, but it
must be carefully gauged to create notoriety and not shut down the show.
More variation exists on the market’s fringes, but the degree is generally
proportional to the size of the audience. The more unusual the stance or
music, the smaller the market. The financial viability of the fringe markets
thus depends on having a limited supply of artists and a specialized public
for a particular view or aesthetic.

The dangers of artists being forced into
conformity are apparent. Given the volatility of mass markets, Wall Street
has a very particular ethos. This was clearly summarized by Ray Kroc, one of
the founders of McDonald's, who was angered by some of his franchises: “We
have found out ... that we cannot trust some people who are nonconformists.
We will make conformists out of them in a hurry. ... The organization cannot
trust the individual; the individual must trust the organization.” The
very nature of a mass market is conformity in both product and customer. [4]

Mr. Sandow’s suggestion that classical
composers should tap into the fringes of the pop market is thus interesting,
but of limited value. The fringes are indeed larger than the usual audience
for classical music, but they could still only support a limited amount of
experimental music. The industry is not in a stable condition, the audiences
would be splintered, and the reactions of the public fickle and highly
unpredictable, especially for kinds of avant-garde classical music they had
never even heard before. Tapping into even the fringes of the pop industry
would likely require elements of conformity that might not suit the wildly
varied and experimental nature of modern classical music.

Even traditional types of classical music
that have tried to be more commercial are often criticized for their bad
taste. David Lister, Media and Culture Editor for The Guardian,
created an interesting summary of some examples:

"The members of the string quartet
Bond, who were trained classically, perform in skimpy tops, tight trousers
and stilettos. Sometimes they are accompanied on stage by nubile dancers
and a rock band, and play music with a dance beat. British chart compilers
said their debut album was pop music and banned it from their classical
chart but it went to the top of the American version."

"The 23-year-old violinist
Vanessa-Mae can probably claim first rights on emerging from the sea in a
suitably dripping outfit to promote her skills in performing a concerto.
When still a teenager she used the wet look in one of her early
promotional videos."

"One critic said of Russell Watson
[a singer]: ‘His ability is reliant on massive amplification, and I very
much doubt whether he has the stamina (or the desire) to sing an entire
role in an opera.’"

"The 'Gregorian Babes' [to] whom Sir
Thomas refers to [are] a desperate attempt to manufacture a classical
version of the Spice Girls. The group went to the top of the classical
charts, but their medieval madrigals were described by one critic as
‘estuary Latin’."

In America, the neo-liberal
paradigm has already given a corporate atmosphere to our culture that is
stronger than ever before in history, and stronger than in any other country
in the world. So why are we being asked to go even farther in this
direction? Generally speaking, if any one system of support for artists
becomes isomorphic, artistic freedom suffers. Varied systems help guarantee
freedom of artistic expression. This is why Europeans have a vibrant and
healthy system of decentralized public funding to provide an alternative to
the commercialization of culture.

The Rise of Crossover and
Its Hip-Con Public

Even though the yuppies of the
late '70s and '80 never represented a clearly defined movement, they might
be seen as interesting examples of the hip-con spirit. They were regarded as
politically conservative and preoccupied with moving toward the centers of
power – often with little regard for the implications. They were a
counter-reaction to the far more extreme “tune-in, turn-on, drop-out”
philosophy of the '60s. The yuppies of Manhattan were often well educated,
ambitious and intelligent. The “downtown” classical music scene became
one of the chic places for the more sophisticated to be seen. The stiff,
incestual establishment serialism of the uptown may have been square and
alien to many hip-cons, but some of the downtowners were incorporating
elements of popular music that they could relate to as cool.

For the most part, the downtown
artists who incorporated elements of pop were not anything like hip-cons.
They were (and still are) solidly on the political left. They knew they had
been able to take advantage of the fringes of the mass market, but given the
diversity of avant-garde musical expression, they generally recognized that
this model was limited and suited to only a narrow spectrum of modern
classical music. It was only much later, after neo-liberalism had become
more established, that their work was used to support an argument that
classical music should be moved to a stronger market paradigm.

Some of the most notable
crossover artists were the Bang-On-A-Can All Stars, who rose to prominence
with programs that included works emulating elements of the tasteful,
semi-popular new-age music of Brian Eno. Programs by Laurie Anderson, such
as “Home of the Brave,” were modeled on the format of rock concerts. Her
song “O Superman” reached No. 2 on the British pop charts. John Zorn
created collages using television cartoon music that was almost iconographic
to a generation of young Americans. And the repetitive, rhythmic qualities
of minimalist composers such as Reich and Glass attracted a generation
brought up on rock. [5]

During the '50s and '60s, pop
music had developed a central place in the American psyche. For the young
people of the late '70s and '80s, a crossover with experimental forms of
classical music was simply part of a quintessentially American milieu they
did not even have to think about. And even though it was not a very
conscious idea for the young hip-con public, the idea of widening the
cultural influence of the marketplace fit the neo-liberal spirit that was a
growing hallmark of the Reagan era. The musicians also seemed to be
influenced. One of the most important aspects of cultural isomorphism is
that artists often unconsciously adapt to and employ the larger social
forces surrounding them.

One of the first writers to note
the crossover forms being developed by the downtown composers was The
New York Times music critic John Rockwell, who described some of the
work in his 1983 book All American Music: Composition in the Late
Twentieth Century. He later became a program director for Lincoln
Center’s summer festival. Partially through his influence, some members of
the downtown began reaching more established midtown publics and a wider
international audience.

Rockwell noted that once again
the desire and ability to merge the aesthetic structures of classical and
commercial was something distinctly American. What neither he nor anyone
else anticipated, was that the crossover would eventually be used to support
a claim that classical music and its modern composers should be more
strongly shifted to the marketplace. Few understood the aesthetic, social,
and economic implications of the evolving neo-liberal paradigm that was
making American society and culture more isomorphic than ever. [6]

Europeans rejected most attempts
in their own societies to merge commercial and classical music. Their
cultures are not dominated by the mass media as in America, and they do not
have the same innate relationship to pop. Given their more extensive
cultural history and public arts funding, it is not surprising that
Europeans hung on to (and were burdened by) more complex and historically
continuous ideas of classical music. And above all, they continued to view
forms of culture associated with the American mass media and corporatism as
hegemonistic and potentially isomorphic, regardless of how hip they might
seem.

The Increasing Political
Division of Europe and America

In many respects, neo-liberalism
is a manifestation of the suspicion toward government traditionally held by
the American right – an ethos that contrasts strongly with Europe’s
tradition of social democracies. During the '60s and '70s, however, a number
of Republicans were still relatively strong supporters of the newly founded
NEA. Support for the arts was still considered a part of traditional,
conservative values. As the Republican Party moved increasingly to the
right, the old cultured libertarian conservatives like Nelson Rockefeller or
William F. Buckley moved to the background. By the '90s, mainstream
libertarian conservatism seemed far less sophisticated. A new populist
version with an openly bigoted crudeness along the lines of Rush Limbaugh
had evolved. Rock, country western, and a kind of neo-liberal cowboy social
Darwinism replaced Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons.”

Populist rightwing attacks on
controversial artists such as Karen Finley, Andres Serrano and Robert
Mapplethorpe were used to rationalize funding reductions for the NEA.
Between 1992 and 1996 the agency’s budget was reduced by almost half –
from $170 million to $97 million. Twenty categories of grants were abolished
between 1990 and 1995. The Contemporary Arts Center of Cincinnati was
indicted for pandering obscenity hours after the opening of the photography
exhibit, Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment. In question were
seven portraits, mostly of sadomasochistic acts. The partisan rhetoric of
conservative politicians such as North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms raised
suspicions of intimidation and censorship. And perhaps more important, the
elimination of entire government agencies was a continuing theme of
congressional rhetoric under Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
The neo-liberal agenda of reducing government became part of the rationale
for shutting down Mozart and Shakespeare along with Serrano.

Popular music also moved to meet
the demands of a newly forming market on the right. Following on types of
punk that incorporated a kind of tribal masculinism, by the 2000’s Eminem
even metastasized black male anger into a hip-con white male anger. He
endorsed, for example, extreme violence against women, but given the
backlash of the '90s, this was within the strictures of the mass media’s
pre-packaged forms of protest. These social statements were embraced by the
music industry because the swing to a crude and somewhat bigoted form of
libertarianism had made them widely accepted and provided the basis for a
mass market. The racist implications in some of Eminem’s most recently
revealed statements, however, are not widely accepted. We thus saw the
industry that supports him quickly backpedaling.

Due to its internal tensions, being a
hip-con became an increasingly difficult balancing act. White racial
resentment, for example, is still difficult to define as hip. The hip-cons
seemed to divide into two groups, one along the older yuppie model, and the
newer along Eminem’s mean-right pattern. As early as 1992, many hip-cons
had moved toward the saxophone-playing Bill Clinton and his more moderate
conservatism, which included a crack down on crime. By the end of
Clinton’s second term, 13% of all African-American men could not vote
because they were in prison or had criminal records. The people whose music
had laid the original foundations for hippness were still strongly
disenfranchised and vast numbers were still living in poverty and
degradation.

After twenty years of neo-liberal Reaganomics, the political and cultural
landscapes of Europe and America were farther apart than ever. The long-term
forms of social democracy that Europeans might have used to approach the
problems of massive racial ghettos could not even be considered. Hillary
Clinton’s campaign for national health insurance -- which is a mainstay of
European social policy -- failed miserably. George W. Bush was elected, and
the dot.com economy collapsed. Fueled by recession, state governments began
to slash or entirely eliminate arts budgets. America’s cultural
institutions struggled to survive, many of them running up large deficits.
The new American administration, which embraced neo-liberalism to an
unprecedented degree, jeered at its traditional allies as “old
Europe.”

An American Culture of Rationalization

With subtle psychological shifts that are almost impossible to deconstruct,
the conflicted hip-con ethos of America became an increasingly complex
network of rationalizations. The Prez plays the sax, so we’re still hip,
aren’t we? If we listen to both Springsteen and Schönberg we must be
egalitarian, right? Even white guys can rap, can’t they? Inside of 20
years we went from Miles Davis making obscene gestures to his white public,
to a buttoned-down Wynton Marsalis playing in Lincoln Center. Many of
jazz’s greats earlier in the century were firmly embraced by the white
establishment, and not all jazz comes out of a spirit of protest.
Nevertheless, some critics seemed to feel that the presentation of notably
conservative jazz in Lincoln Center was another example of the white
establishment conveniently presenting and appropriating only a specific
spectrum of black culture. Both pop and jazz seemed to find a place in
America’s culture of rationalization.

In many respects, hip-cons have come to represent the latest incarnation of
the classic American ethos of being rebels without a cause. Listening to
rock gives them a sense of breaking from the bourgeois middle and rejecting
conformity to a system that is often vacuous and morally conflicted. The
irony that the mass media is one of the largest manifestations of cultural
isomorphism in the history of humanity is not considered.

In culturally isomorphic societies, thought is less and less likely to move
outside a pre-configured set of paradigms. In the 20th century, for example,
we saw a culturally isomorphic essentialization of art in the "Gleichschaltung”
of the Third Reich, in the Social Realism of the East Block, in the
“Cultural Revolution” of Maoist China, and to an increasing extent in
the mass media commercialization of culture in America. [7]
Like the political divisions of the 20th century, these aesthetic
orthodoxies reduced human expression to systemic concepts that tend toward
the formulaic and reductionist. Since narrowed perspectives make it
difficult to confront aspects of reality, a culture of self-referential
rationalization evolves.

The European’s Defense of Communal Identity

So where does this leave the European view of America and its arts funding
models today? To answer, it is important to note that continental Europeans
often regard American music as a type of exotica – an art that embodies a
radical departure from their own traditions. In Germany, for example, Ives,
Bernstein, Cage, Reich, and laptop improvisers fit their desired image of
the American spirit. Composers more in line with Germany’s still dominant
forms of complex modernism, like Carter and Babbit, remain much less
appreciated and performed.

Europeans thus especially appreciate the crossover forms that have become an
American specialty, but they reject the argument that a commercial paradigm
is an appropriate funding model for classical music. They question the
breezily hip tones that tell us classical music must become commercially
viable or go extinct. Rock or die? Is that the only real alternative? What
does that mean for artistic integrity and the autonomy of human
expression?

In the spirit of their mixed economies, Europeans would argue that many
forms of artistic expression cannot be positioned or relativised within the
mass market or its fringes. For them, culture must be communal and
autonomous. They often see American culture as hegemonistic -- a totalizing
and destructive assault on the humanistic, cultural and social structures
they have worked so long and hard to create.

A general sense of the different perspectives concerning communal identity
can be illustrated with an example now widely discussed in the States. Many
Americans have seen how corporate-owned strip malls and Wal-Marts have
deeply affected their cities and towns. The old downtown areas are abandoned
as customers move to corporate businesses on the edge of town. Communal
identity and autonomy, which are an important part of cultural expression,
are replaced with a relatively isomorphic corporatism.

Europeans struggle to maintain a different model. Most cities and towns have
thousand year histories that are reflected in the architectural and other
cultural treasures of their various municipal centers. They employ zoning
laws and other regulations, as well as public education, to protect their
cities from the Wal-Martization that would be caused by embracing
American-styled neo-liberalism. Europeans have large department stores and
the occasional K-Mart, but their influence is kept within balance. They
would consider the losses to their cultural identity caused by corporate
uniformity to be too great.

Europeans see Hollywood and America’s massive music industry in a similar
way. They feel these institutions standardize culture into mass markets that
reduce communal identity. Far from making music even more commercial, the
European response has been to create a balance with public arts funding. In
Germany, for example, cities with more than about 100,000 people often have
a full-time orchestra, opera house, and theater company that are state- and
municipally owned. A good deal of funding for these groups is set aside for
new music. Europeans also administer this arts funding locally, and not from
a remote Federal organization such as the NEA. [8]
They are not only the recipients of mass culture; they express themselves
according to their autonomous, local needs and prerogatives.

As a result, the European view is likely to reject a superficial form of
postmodernism that presumes to flow with an exaggerated ease from rock to
Brahms, as if distinctions between the production, marketing, and reception
of commercial and classical music could be brushed aside. They know that the
production costs for recording a five-piece rock band are far smaller and
the audience vastly larger than for a recording of an opera that would
require 200 to 400 people and reach an audience not even a tenth the size.
They know that a festival for new orchestral music such as at Donaueschingen
might have standing-room-only crowds year after year, but that such
endeavors cannot be designed to make a profit. [9]

In Germany, classical recordings compete strongly against pop. This is not
merely a matter of history or coincidence. Europeans use their local public
cultural institutions to educate their children and this creates a wide
appreciation for classical music. The popularity is also based on a sense of
communal pride. They support their local cultural institutions almost like
they were sports teams. European society illustrates that music education
leads to forms of creativity and autonomy that are often antithetic to mass
media. The European view is not based on elitism or a dismissal of popular
culture, but on an understanding that an unmitigated capitalism is not a
seamless, all-encompassing paradigm - particularly when it comes to cultural
expression.

The Loss of Cultural Discourse in Isomorphic Systems

Proponents of America’s neo-liberalism claim that alternatives to a
singular cultural paradigm exist. In reality, the large majority of cultural
offerings come from Manhattan and a few other cities, even though the
country has 280 million people. Even the other boroughs of New York City,
such as the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island would seem short of cultural
offerings. And the situation is similar in many of our heartland cities.

International comparisons might illustrate this point. Germany, for example,
has one full-time, year-round orchestra for every 590,000 people, while the
United States has one for every 14 million (or 23 times less per capita.)
Germany has about 80 year-round opera houses, while the U.S., with more than
three times the population, does not have any. Even the Met only has a
seven-month season. These numbers mean that larger German cities often have
several orchestras. Munich has seven full-time, year-round professional
orchestras, two full-time, year-round opera houses (one with a large
resident ballet troupe,) as well as two full-time, large, spoken-word
theaters for a population of only 1.2 million. Berlin has three full-time,
year-round opera houses, though they may eventually have to close one due to
the costs of rebuilding the city after reunification.

If America averaged the same ratios per capita as Germany, it would have 485
full-time, year-round orchestras instead of about 20. If New York City had
the same number of orchestras per capita as Munich it would have about 45.
If New York City had the same number of full-time operas as Berlin per
capita it would have six. Areas such as Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx
would be nationally and internationally important cultural centers. The
reality is somewhat different.

If America’s Northeastern seaboard had the same sort of orchestral
landscape as Germany, there would be full-time, year-round professional
orchestras (often in conjunction with opera houses) in Long Island, Newark,
Jersey City, Trenton, Camden, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, New
Haven, Hartford, Springfield, Providence, and Boston. California would have
about 60 full-time, year-round professional orchestras. Like Germany, the
U.S. would suffer from a shortage of good classical musicians. There would
be little unemployment for these artists. With that much creativity, it is
unlikely Americans would stick to European repertoire and models. Even with
half the German ratios, a starkly American musical culture would evolve that
would likely change history.

It is also essential and informative to place these numbers in the context
of the dismal social conditions in almost all major American cities, since
these are areas where classical music would normally thrive. A recent
article in The New York Times, for example, notes that Philadelphia
has 14,000 abandoned buildings in a dangerous state of collapse, 31,000
trash-strewn vacant lots, 60,000 abandoned autos, and has lost 75,000
citizens in recent years. [10]
Regions such as the south Bronx, Watts, East St. Louis and Detroit, just to
name a few, show that Philadelphia is hardly an exception. The populations
living in our dehumanizing ghettos are measured in the tens of millions. It
seems very likely that the problems with arts funding in America are closely
related to the same social forces that have caused the country to neglect
its urban environments. This naturally leaves many Europeans wondering why
America is so intent on exporting its economic and cultural models.

The problems of arts funding are seldom the topic of genuinely serious and
sustained political discussion. The cultural and political system has become
so isomorphic that most Americans do not even consider that alternatives
could be created to institutions such as network television and Hollywood.
With only one percent of the military’s $396 billion budget, we could have
132 opera houses lavishly funded at $30 million apiece. (That much funding
would put them on par with the best opera houses in the world, and as noted,
likely lead to forms of expression more distinctly American.)

The same sum could support 264 spoken-word theaters at $15 million each. It
could subsidize 198 full-time, year round world-class symphony orchestras at
$20 million each. Or it could give 79,200 composers, painters and sculptors
a yearly salary of $50,000 each. Remember, that’s only one percent of the
military budget. Imagine what five percent would do. These examples awaken
us to the Orwellian realities of our country and how different it could be.
Given our wealth, talent, and educational resources, we are losing our
chance to be the Athens of the modern world.

We also see that cultural isomorphism leads to the suppression of political,
social and cultural discourse. Discussions outside the neo-liberal paradigm
are becoming increasingly rare. How astounding, for example, that a U.S.
Senator recently gave a long interview for the American Music Center’s
webzine, New Music Box, and not one question was asked or comment made about
the NEA or any other form of public funding for the arts. Europeans would
find this incomprehensible.

Another example of the loss of intelligent discourse is the discussion
surrounding the current proposed $18 million increase for the NEA. This sum
represents only seven-thousandths of one percent of the proposed 2005
U.S. budget, a number almost too infinitesimal to comprehend. And yet the
topic is once again being opportunistically exploited as a political
battering ram.

In Europe, by contrast, funding for the arts is a central platform of every
major political party. Lively and varied artistic expression is considered
one of the most important forums for national discourse. Politicians
literally search for opportunities to speak about the arts because it is
politically advantageous. The dialog is generally intelligent, meaningful,
and carefully considered.

Summary and Conclusion

In review, we see that Europe’s funding
traditions and models suggest several policies and administrative practices
Americans might consider:

1. Europeans use public funding to
provide alternatives to the marketplace for cultural expression. This
reinforces freedom of artistic expression and deeply enriches their
societies. America’s heavy reliance on the market as an arbiter of
culture sometimes limits our options. Our government spends billions on
other intellectual spheres, such as education, space exploration and
scientific research, but we have seriously limited our cultural lives
through a suspicion toward public arts funding.

2. European politicians avoid attacking the arts for populist and
opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is seldom, if ever,
broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit themselves. Few
mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as North Carolina
Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the homosexuals ain’t
seen nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to eliminate almost
half of a nation’s arts funding because of two or three marginalized
avant-garde artists. After the traumas of both fascism and communism,
Europeans realize how destructive the intimidation of artists is to the
dignity and cultural identity of society. This no longer happens in
Europe, and need not happen in America.

3. European arts funding is generally decentralized and administered
mostly on the state and municipals levels. The NEA’s centralized funding
makes it an easy target for populist political attacks. Europeans would
also find it strange for a federal government to fund the arts in any
specific way because it is so difficult at that level to have direct
contact with the lives and work of artists and the communities they serve.
The NEA and the states must continue to develop arts-funding models
directly connected to cities, towns and regional communities.

4. Europeans use their cultural legacies to establish and assert their
place in the world, often through extensive cultural diplomacy. American
politicians should be reminded that Ella Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein and
Louis Armstrong can often accomplish far more than an F-16, and for a tiny
fraction of the costs, both economic and human. Given our talent,
educational system, and wealth, we must renew our vision of how brightly
our cultural light could shine.

5. Europeans combine arts education with the living presence of the
performing arts within their communities. Classical music is far more
relevant to young people when performing arts organizations are a highly
present and esteemed part of their city or region. In America, the nearest
genuinely professional full-time performing arts organization is often
hundreds of miles away. America’s children should perceive the arts as
part of their communities. And our more talented children should be able
to think of the arts as a realistic career option, just as children in
Europe do.

6. Even though Europeans often celebrate the lighter classics, they still
stress classical musical for its inherent strengths. As the American
Symphony Orchestra League has noted, America has been trying to build
publics by emphasizing pops (and cross-over) concerts since the 1960s.
This has had a partially adverse effect through lowering the public’s
expectations. Superficial programming is also increasingly influencing
classical music radio stations. Through confidence in classical music’s
inherent strengths, higher standards and expectations could be awakened.

7. Europeans view the city itself as the greatest and most complete
expression of the human mind and spirit. Venice, Florence, Rome, Prague,
Amsterdam, Dresden, Barcelona and Paris, just to name a few, are all
embued with this ideal. Americans, by contrast, behave almost as if they
have lost hope in their cities, as if they were dangerous and inhuman
urban wastelands to be abandoned for the suburbs. This tacit assumption
has had a profound but largely unrecognized effect on American political
and cultural discourse. Classical music is one of the most urban of art
forms. Its status will always be measured by the health and vibrancy of
our cities. Ultimately, questions of arts funding will only be fully
resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban
environments are deeply interdependent.

Over the long term, these general
understandings that Europeans have gained over centuries of experience could
beneficially influence the political and cultural climate in America. It is
not enough that people have freedom of speech; they must also have
mechanisms for meaningfully expressing and debating it. Public arts funding
is deeply valuable because it encourages societies to be diverse,
intellectually alive, inquisitive and realistic. It furthers the discourse
societies need to fully express their communal and national identity and
place it in the rest of the world. It furthers our ability to heal and help.
It furthers our well-being, freedom of expression, and pursuit of happiness.
Public arts funding represents the deepest American ideals.

ENDNOTES

As
I note later, the U.S. does not have any year round opera houses. Even
the Met only has a seven month season, but one can add up the partial
seasons of the country’s few scattered companies in order to make a
comparison. I gave the US a very generous estimate.

The
philosopher, John Locke, first proposed the origins of liberalism in the
17th century. He argued that the purpose of law was to insure human
rights through limiting the powers of monarchies. In his book, The
Wealth of Nations, written in 1776, Adam Smith argued for a similar
abolition of government intervention in the market place. Two forms of
liberalism evolved: social-liberalism focusing on the protection of
human rights, and market-liberalism emphasizing laissez-faire
capitalism. Liberalism flourished in America since it did not have a
monarchy to suppress it. Among the country’s founders, Thomas
Jefferson stressed social-liberalism while James Madison stressed
market-liberalism. In many respects, Madison’s vision prevailed. By
the end of the 19th century, America was a major industrial power whose
economy was largely dominated by unregulated monopolies. Huge
dichotomies existed in the distribution of wealth, unions were
suppressed, and issues such as job safety and public welfare were almost
non-existent.
After the economic collapse of the 1930s, the theories of John Maynard
Keynes replaced America’s extreme market-liberalism. He argued that
full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow, and that
regulations are necessary to curtail abuses of the market. Governments
and central banks intervened to implement his policies. Roosevelt’s
social-liberalism was quickly dismantled in the anti-communist
atmosphere after the Second World War, but social democracy continued in
Europe and became a deeply embedded aspect of their societies. A brief
attempt was made to revive social-liberalism under John F. Kennedy, but
failed. By the 1980s neo-liberalism was accepted policy in the United
States.
Even though the social democracies of Europe have been slow to embrace
neo-liberalism, it is difficult for them to resist due to the
integration of markets in global capitalism.

Mr.
Sandow’s views are somewhat anti-modernist and reach instead for an
aesthetic derived from his background in popular music. In his article
“Access: Denied”, (Symphony, September-October 2003), he criticizes
modernist music for its lack of accessibility, “Some modernist music
seems really strange. Twelve-tone music, for example, inevitably […]
comes off as abstract, creepy, and mechanical. What was Schoenberg
doing, putting all the notes in arbitrary rows?” In “Why Classical
Music Needs Rock & Roll” (published on his website), he writes,
“Today, the musical roots of our culture aren't in folk songs. They're
in rock, country, rhythm and blues -- the entire range of musical styles
that typify pop music in the rock & roll era (even rap). Classical
music won't seem natural in America until both composition and
performance reflect that obvious fact.” In “Noise in New York”
(Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2003), he praises the Bang On A Can
All-Stars who employ crossover elements from pop music. He describes the
music of Michael Gordon and suggests, “A lot of people who've never
heard this music would surely love it -- people, to start with, who
listen to alternative pop. But how can they be reached? The future of
classical composition might hang, at least in part, on the answer.”
And in his article, “I’m Wolfgang, And I’ll Be Your Composer”
(Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2002) he even suggests restaurants
might hire classical composers to write background dinner music.

This
does not mean that the music industry is alone in forcing artists to
compromise their integrity. Academic composers often face an oppressive
tenure system that is just as bad. And the European system of public
funding is laden with officials who often exercise very narrow biases
and insiderism in their tastes and opinions.

The
uptown response, which came to fruition a little later, was in some
sense a kind of neo-romantic music. By the mid 70s, George Rochberg
championed a return to an early Schoenbergian chromatic tonality. John
Corgliano was already gaining recognition, but was still held in strong
contempt by the deeply established serial community. It wasn’t until
the late 80s that representatives of these trends began to take the
composition chairs at institutions such as Juilliard and win the uptown
oriented Pulitzer Prize. Though they embraced a newfound relationship
with the public, these composers did not aspire to the same kind of
commercial crossover as many of the downtown composers.

These
arguments were analogous with the way postmodern theory was later
exploited. Some of the French theorists who developed postmodernism
ultimately rejected many of its manifestations in America. From the
outset, they felt America is deconstructive by its very nature. They
felt the conscious and faddish use of postmodernism in the States
sometimes led to simplistic rationalizations of superficial, provincial
eclecticism. Perhaps it also contributed to neo-liberal justifications
of placing art more exclusively in the marketplace.

In
an earlier article, “Symphony Orchestras and Artist-Prophets: Cultural
Isomorphism and the Allocation of Power in Music.” Leonardo Music
Journal 9 (1999): 69-76, I have defined cultural isomorphism as a social
order where artistic expression is strongly shaped by conditions such as
a totalizing economic system, religious fundamentalism,
hyper-nationalism, or a dominating state of affairs such as long term
war.

This
is not to say that a federal arts funding system is unnecessary,
especially in America where a consensus for supporting the arts still
needs to be built. As Dana Gioa, the director of the NEA has said,
"On a broader and less pecuniary basis, the importance of the arts
endowment is to articulate from a national perspective a compelling and
inclusive message of the importance of arts funding. The most effective
way to build a case really comes from the national level. Otherwise, the
individual states really are left without an umbrella of support."
The funding, however, will become most meaningful when people learn to
administer it mostly on municipal and state levels.

Germany
has been able to maintain its public arts funding even though
unification expanded its population by 25 percent, and with people who
had virtually no economic infrastructure left.

"Philadelphia's
Mayor Seeks to Expand City's Revival," New York Times_, April 30,
2001.

Melinda Whiting, “Renaissance Man Dana Gioia Brings Broad Interests and
a Business Background to the NEA” Symphony (July/August 2003)
[An excellent interview with the director of the NEA in the journal of the
American Symphony Orchestra League. Among other things, he discusses the
Europeans’ sense of cultural patrimony.]http://www.symphony.org/news/room/03ja_greenroom.shtml

“Arts and Minds.” [A conference on cultural diplomacy amid global
tensions hosted by the National Arts Journalism Program at Columbia
University. The site contains several excellent articles that discuss the
European view of culture and its role in society.]http://www.najp.org/conferences/artsminds/index.htm

Richard Florida, “Bohemia and Economic Geography”Journal of
Economic Geography (2002). [The underlying hypothesis is that the
concentration of bohemians in an area creates an environment that attracts
other types of talented or “high human capital” individuals.]http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jecgeo/v2y2002i1p55-71.html